Jones Act

Jones Act Lawyer Showed Employer’s “Voluntary” Comp Payments Didn’t End Other Rights

An injured worker had accepted voluntary compensation payments from his employer under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act (LHWCA). Some months later, with no real warning, the employer just stopped making the payments, and the worker contacted a Jones Act lawyer. The question became whether or not the worker could still bring a seaman’s Jones Act claim for damages, after having received LHWCA payments.

The Deputy Commissioner (DC’s review LHWCA claims) charged that the injured worker in this case was somehow ‘wrongfully’ trying to make an abrupt “about face.” The Jones Act lawyer for the employee put it in simple terms, though, and believed the Jones Act (and not the LHWCA) actually applied. The DC also raised a highly technical reason to try and keep a federal court from making any decision in the matter, the Jones Act lawyer pointed out….the DC claimed the case really came down to only a “factual” question. This would mean, said the Jones Act lawyer, the DC was saying courts “must” follow the DC’s findings, whether the court “agrees” with the DC’s factual conclusions or not. Yet, the Jones Act lawyer was to successfully emphasize that “(t)here was nothing ‘sinister’ or suspicious about a worker who was disabled, deciding to go to a Jones Act lawyer to get his rights by whatever lawful remedies are available.” To make that happen, the Jones Act lawyer appealed the DC’s ruling into federal court.

The circumstances, the Jones Act lawyer was to point out, don’t justify stopping an injured employee from proving whether he was covered by the Jones Act (or put another way, not covered by the LHWCA). Instead, the evidence from the Jones Act lawyer showed that the employer voluntarily made payments under the LHWCA and then just “quit.” Then, the injured worker filed a formal claim, through a Jones Act lawyer, for additional benefits and for a decision on Jones Act coverage.

Jones Act Lawyer Forced Full Investigation of Jones Act Coverage On Seaman Status

At the Jones Act lawyer’s request, an appeals Judge reviewed the DC’s decision. That judge agreed with the Jones Act lawyer, and ordered a remand of the case to the DC, for a full hearing on the question of “seaman status.” The Jones Act lawyer introduced testimony, witnesses, and evidence during a two-day hearing. The DC only then found that the injured worker “was not a member of a crew of the vessel,” but was supposedly included under the coverage of the LHWCA.

Jones Act Lawyer Showed Other Court Cases Consistently Allowed Jones Act Suit To Follow LHWCA Claims

The Jones Act lawyer noted that the rule of allowing ‘successive’ Jones Act/LHWCA claims, when tested “the other way,” hadn’t prevented a Jones Act suit. The Jones Act lawyer noted several cases where an injured employee had first brought a Jones Act claim, and later sought an award under the LHWCA, as a result of a second accident under the same employer. This situation, emphasized the Jones Act lawyer, had even been approved by the US Supreme Court itself. It was “logical” for allowing the process to “work both ways.”

The Jones Act lawyer also noted the public and legal policies, which not only allowed, but encouraged flexible protection for seamen. Congress’s policy was clearly indicated in what the appeals court itself described as “unmistakable terms,” when “master and member” of the crew were covered only by the Jones Act. The maritime unions also stepped into the debate about preferring the Jones Act, and said the Jones Act is “superior to the relief afforded by the LHWCA.”

The federal court strongly agreed with the Jones Act lawyer, and concluded that “neither the facts nor the law supports a finding of presenting” a Jones Act suit after an LHWCA claim in this case. That court took the decision away from the DC and allowed Jones Act coverage. As rights for seamen have gradually improved, there occur conflicts between whether the LHWCA or the Jones Act actually applies. In this case, for some reason, the DC harbored a motive for trying to discourage a Jones Act suit by the seaman, through his Jones Act lawyer. These are among the vital details to be worked out, sooner rather than “later,” by meeting with an experienced Jones Act lawyer.

Solo Ship Worker Was Still “Crew” Member Under Jones Act, Not LHWCA, Showed Jones Act Attorney

It’s important, noted a US Labor Department representative at a recent maritime safety conference in New Orleans, for a Jones Act attorney to be “part of the process of drawing useful lines between the Jones Act and the longshore workers act [LHWCA].” The representative was discussing the way the Labor Department has had to, as he put it, “pay attention to getting our longshore decisions right.” One policy under discussion is the (now) longstanding rule about how much discretion the Labor department has had in deciding when someone is either a seaman or a longshoreman. Many of the rules were hammered out in a Supreme Court decision, where a Jones Act attorney helped shape the LHWCA, too.

The question in the case, noted the Jones Act attorney, was whether Samuel Grant, called a bargeman, was entitled to compensation under either the Jones Act or the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA). Medical evidence obtained by his Jones Act attorney showed that Grant was hurt when a capstan bar, used to shift the barge at a pier, pulled out, hitting him full on the chest and causing him to fall. If Grant was a “master or member of a crew of any vessel,” then he would have had the rights of the Jones Act, because such jobs are expressly excluded from the coverage of the LHWCA, noted the Jones Act attorney.

The Deputy Commissioner found that Grant was a harbor worker, and not a “master or member of a crew,” and applied the LHWCA. The federal court of Appeals reversed, however, saying Grant was covered by the Jones Act, (in other words, said the Jones Act attorney, “was a seaman”) and not the LHWCA. The Jones Act attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

Grant, noted the Jones Act attorney, was employed as a boatman on a barge that at the time of the injury was afloat on the navigable waters of the United States. The barge had no motive power of its own, and moved by towing or winding up of a cable, using a capstan. The Jones Act attorney also noted the oddities of calling the barge a “sea vessel,” which although “documented as a vessel of the United States,” it never went to sea, and was confined in its operations to a thirty miles radius.

The Jones Act attorney noted that the LHWCA system is broken up into compensation districts, with Deputy Commissioners reviewing the programs in each district. The Act gives Deputy Commissioners “full power and authority to hear and determine all questions in respect of compensation claims.” The findings of the Deputy Commissioner were once considered to be virtually final, but the Jones Act attorney emphasized many cases where courts had ample reason to overrule a mistake by the Commissioner. This, the Jones Act attorney noted, was going to be such a case.

Commissioner’s Error Described As Being “Major” By Jones Act Attorney

Historically, courts had given a large degree of finality to administrative decisions about who gets LHWCA coverage. A Jones Act attorney noted this “finality” was meant to help seamen, who would be hurt if the process were allowed to drag on. But, as the Jones Act attorney also noted, there were differences of opinion about whether the LHWCA was “better” for seamen than the Jones Act. In fact, the effort to bring a master and members of a crew under the LHWCA was successfully opposed by most of the union reps of maritime employees. And the maritime unions also filed a legal brief in Grant’s case, opposing LHWCA benefits to Grant under the facts, noted the Jones Act attorney.

Jones Act Attorney Will Help Decide How Jones Act Rules Match LHWCA Rights

The purpose of the LHWCA legislation, observed the Jones Act attorney, was to protect those who “are mainly employed in loading, unloading, refitting, and repairing ships.” Grant, pointed out the Jones Act attorney, seemed to do no work of the type usually called longshoring. Grant’s duties were “different” from usual “crew” work only inasmuch as they were shaped by the vessel’s own requirements. In other words, the Jones Act attorney showed Grant’s work was that of a seaman, regardless of the purpose of the vessel. The employment contract (introduced by the Jones Act attorney)  showed Grant’s pay was for “services to safeguard and operate the barge fleet.”

The US Supreme Court finally agreed with the Jones Act attorney, and even went a bit further, saying “(O)nly by a distorted definition of the word ‘crew,’ as used in the LHWCA, could Grant be restricted to the remedy which it affords, and excluded from recovery under the Jones Act or be denied relief in admiralty.”

Experts in labor safety have noted the important role of a Jones Act attorney in this case. In fact, many believe that regardless of the type of maritime injury, an experienced Jones Act attorney is crucial for an injured seaman. The Labor expert said “Many ‘longshoremen’ have been surprised to find out they really were covered by the Jones Act,” and—after medical treatment—needed an expert Jones Act attorney most of all.

Vessel Owner Failed To Prevent Jones Act Attorney From Having Jury Hear Entire Case

Alex Bean, a seaman, talked with a Jones Act attorney, who sued a vessel owner, Northern Shipping. Bean, based on detailed medical records obtained by the Jones Act attorney, had twisted and strained his back while working on Northern’s ship. His Jones Act attorney sought to prove $75,000 damages based on negligence, and $10,000 based on the vessel owner’s failing to give proper medical care, maintenance and cure, and wages. Bean’s negligence claim, created by the Jones Act, gave all seamen a jury trial “as of right,” noted the Jones Act attorney. A lawsuit for maintenance and cure didn’t [before the Jones Act attorney won this case] usually require the same trial by jury. The injured seaman’s Jones Act attorney in this case did demand a jury, since all the issues came out of a single accident. The trial judge granted a jury trial for the Jones Act and issues, but held the questions of maintenance and cure to decide by himself after the jury trial on the other issues. It was telling, pointed out the Jones Act attorney, that the vessel owner wanted to keep the Jones Act argument and the maintenance and cure case separated, even though they both came from exactly the same facts. The Jones Act attorney appealed the judge’s right to keep the maintenance and cure question from the jury.

Jones Act Attorney Fought For Seaman’s Right To One Trial, All Issues

For years, it had been a common, but not (as the Jones Act attorney showed) a “consistent” pattern for courts to have jury trials for both Jones Act (a) negligence and (b) maintenance and cure claims, when there was a single accident. The Jones Act attorney noted that courts using one trial did so because it “makes so much sense.” Requiring a seaman to split up his lawsuit ( part of it to a jury and part of it to a judge) ended up complicating and confusing the process, argued the Jones Act attorney.

The Jones Act attorney pointed out that it’s extremely hard for a judge, in trying a separate maintenance and cure claim, to always know what went into the separate damages awarded by a jury. For example, the Jones Act attorney listed several elements that might be used by a jury to decide damages: how loss of earning power was calculated, how much was allowed for medical expenses, how was pain and suffering estimated, how much for actual lost wages, and how much (if any) were damages reduced by any contributory negligence? The risks of these potential unknowns were increased by having separate trials for similar issues, noted the Jones Act attorney. “An end,” the Jones Act attorney insisted, “should be seen for these outdated and wasteful ways of trying a seaman’s case.”

Seaman’s Right To Choose Method Of Trial Was Defended By Jones Act Attorney

The US Constitution’s Seventh Amendment doesn’t require jury trials in non-Jones Act, admiralty cases, agreed the Jones Act attorney. But on the other hand, the Jones Act attorney emphasized, neither does any part of the Constitution forbid jury trials. When, as in this case, a particular way of having a trial is so confusing and time consuming that it puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of injured seamen seeking justice, the Jones Act attorney argued successfully, courts should fix the problem. Only one “trier of fact” should be used for a trial of what is really only one lawsuit. And since Congress, in the Jones Act, decided that the negligence part of a claim “shall” be tried by a jury, it’s not okay to require maintenance and cure claims to go to a judge alone. In this case, as the Jones Act attorney had requested, the jury had been the correct place to try all the claims, at once.

The US Supreme Court had agreed with the Jones Act attorney and said that a maintenance and cure claim (if filed with a Jones Act claim) “must be submitted to the jury” when both claims come from one set of facts. The seaman in this case was entitled to a jury trial “as of right” on the maintenance and cure claim. Many injured seamen may believe that they are receiving sufficient maintenance and cure…they may even decide not to see a Jones Act attorney, until they can’t work at all. This case, where the Supreme Court itself supported the seaman and the Jones Act attorney has a different message than “wait.” Immediately after a seaman’s injury, where any claim may be involved, it’s vital for the seaman to get advice from an experienced Jones Act attorney.

Independent Review Of Oil Rig Disaster Praised Jones Act Lawyer

A safety panel in Mexico, which studied a catastrophic oil rig blowout, said “many of the facts of what happened…and what shouldn’t happen again…were discovered due to the work of a Jones Act lawyer.” The lawsuit was based on an accident that occurred on a mobile drilling rig and oil production platform in Mexican territorial waters, just north of the Mexican coast, in the Gulf of Campeche. Because of the complications, the survivors sought the help of an experienced US Jones Act lawyer. In all, eighteen workers had died, and dozens more suffered severe injuries. In escaping the blowout, many of the life rafts used by some of the victims were battered apart by heavy seas. The seamen were all Mexican residents, and they were employed by Compañia Perforadora Central, or Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico’s state owned oil company. PEMEX owned the production platform and rented the drilling rig where the seamen were working at the time of the accident.

Survivors And Family Members’ Rights Were Defended By Jones Act Lawyer

The seamen’s surviving family members’ Jones Act lawyer presented evidence of negligence, gross negligence, products liability, and wrongful death. The law of these claims included rules from the Jones Act and also (since the Jones Act lawyer anticipated the employer’s defenses) a State’s laws or even the relevant laws of Mexico. The owners argued that the seamen’s surviving family members’ claims were barred from US courts. There were limits, acknowledged the Jones Act lawyer, but they shouldn’t apply, the Jones Act lawyer successfully argued, in the facts of this case. The owners argued that the seamen’s surviving family members’ complaint should be dismissed. The trial court agreed with the owners, but the Jones Act lawyer quickly appealed.

The Jones Act lawyer had already won a stipulation that the injured and killed were employed at the time of the incident by PEMEX, which was engaged in the exploration, development, and production of Mexican oil and gas resources. The Jones Act lawyer was to emphasize on appeal that American courts had decided these kinds of oil exploration cases, with foreign nationals, before.

Jones Act Lawyer Won Rights To US Court Under “Plain Meaning” Of Jones Act

The owners argued that the seamen’s surviving family members’ claims were barred a section of the Jones Act. In one of the only court decision addressing the issue, a court had actually held the opposite, proved the Jones Act lawyer. In that other case, the Jones Act “prevents (a foreign citizen’s claim in US court) only (if) brought under the maritime law of the United States” and not a claim brought pursuant to foreign laws (in that case,Mexico’s).

Other federal courts have also, emphasized the Jones Act lawyer, focused on the plain meaning of the Jones Act, because it makes no mention of foreign law claims, the Jones Act logically doesn’t bar foreign law claims. However, the court also said that it didn’t need to study the legislative history of the Act, since its “plain language” meant foreign laws are not barred.

The Jones Act lawyer also pointed to the few similar cases. Another court held that although the Jones Act prevented a Honduran seaman from suing for personal injuries under US law, it didn’t stop a federal court from deciding his claims under laws of (in that case) Nigeria, the United Kingdom, or France. The court in that case also looked into the “plain language” of the Jones Act and decided it had the power to decide foreign law claims, the Jones Act lawyer proved.

In another case mentioned by the Jones Act lawyer, the Supreme Court of at least one state (Texas) also decided that foreign law claims are not barred from state courts by the Jones Act. Finally, the appeals court itself agreed with the Jones Act lawyer, and said that the plain meaning of the Jones Act required that this case’s claims in a US court, based on both Mexican and international law, were not barred by the Jones Act. The appeals court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the claims and allowed the case to go ahead.

In this case, the interests of American justice put a priority on giving seamen a “court of last resort” where they could find justice. A Jones Act lawyer recognized that the claims under these foreign laws affected all seamen. The Jones Act lawyer in the case eventually received high praise from Mexico’s independent oil safety panel, which had studied the catastrophic blowout. “The rights of the injured oil workers, affected families, and survivors were protected by an American Jones Act lawyer.”

Jones Act Attorney Defended Widow’s Rights Under Jones Act From Limited State Claims For Wrongful Death

Professor Henry Pearlman has studied important safety rules for seamen as a maritime engineer for the last thirty years. This work also brought him into contact with legal decisions, and the importance of getting help from an experienced Jones Act attorney when there’s an injury involved. As a popular lecturer at an annual conference in New Orleans, the Professor also singled out for praise a case where, as he put it, “a Jones Act attorney helped lead to a major change, to make sure the wrongful death of a seaman was no longer ignored.” The case Pearlman referred to was that of Alex Wolfe, usually a longshoreman, who was killed, while working as a seaman aboard the Golden Cress, within navigable US waters on the Gulf of Mexico. The man’s widow met with a Jones Act attorney. Knowing there were obstacles under the State’s laws, the Jones Act attorney worked for a new federal decision on the issue of wrongful death caused by unseaworthiness. The Jones Act attorney sued the owner of the vessel, to recover damages for wrongful death, and also for the pain and suffering experienced by Wolfe prior to his death.

Jones Act Attorney Successfully Appealed Supreme Court Ruling From Last Century

Both the vessel owner and Wolfe’s actual employer sought dismissal of the part of the widow’s complaint for wrongful death on the basis of unseaworthiness. They argued that maritime law gave no recovery for wrongful death within a State’s territorial waters. The District Court agreed and actually dismissed the wrongful death portion of the complaint, over the strong objection of the Jones Act attorney. The basis of the ruling, pointed out the Jones Act attorney, was a US Supreme Court case from long ago, in 1869. The Jones Act attorney succeeded in appealing the ruling against the widow, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to review their old ruling.

Jones Act Attorney Showed States Reached Inconsistent Rules On Wrongful Death

American courts, the Jones Act attorney acknowledged, had generally adopted the English rule against allowing wrongful death in unseaworthiness claims, as the common law in America, too. But American courts for a hundred years, argued the Jones Act attorney, failed to produce any really satisfactory explanations for applying the rule in. Some courts explained their decisions based on the difficulty in calculating damages for a wrongful death, or by a “repugnance to setting a price upon human life.”

However, over time, some courts did calculate the loss to dependents, or by the estate of a deceased, the Jones Act attorney showed. Still, a seaman’s right to recover damages for injuries or death, caused by “unseaworthiness” of the ship, was an obscure and relatively little used right. Perhaps, the Jones Act attorney pointed out, because a shipowner’s duty back then was only to use “due diligence” to provide a seaworthy ship. Since this earlier time, pointed out the Jones Act attorney, the equation had changed. Individual cases had been won, where a Jones Act attorney helped transform a shipowner’s duty into an absolute duty not satisfied by “due diligence.” To put it another way, the Jones Act attorney said, the message of the Jones Act was that it didn’t ignore available state rights; but there was no intention that the Jones Act should rule out federal rights, either. One important goal was for all seamen to have the same rights, no matter where they were hurt, noted the Jones Act attorney…and the Supreme Court was ready to agree.

The Jones Act attorney noted that the Act was passed at almost the same time as the Death on the High Seas Act. This helped show, pointed out the Jones Act attorney, that the Act was intended to result in “uniformity in the exercise of admiralty” by giving seamen the same rights regardless of where the injury or death happened. The Act’s concern for uniformity, the Jones Act attorney had suggested, was harmed in this case by non-uniformity (having each state develop its own wrongful death laws for seamen). The Supreme Court agreed with the Jones Act attorney, reversed the 1869 case, and recognized the widow’s right to recover for wrongful death for unseaworthiness. This result, observed the Jones Act attorney, would help “assure uniform federal policies” about seaman’s rights under the Act.

Professor Pearlman noted this was a case where a Jones Act attorney was “as important as the entire Congress. The courage of this widow, and the help of one Jones Act attorney, changed a law that most courts by then had recognized as being a bad law…an unfair rule against injured seamen and their survivors. To this day, one lesson is that when a seaman is hurt, they should not give up. They should seek the help of an experienced and dedicated Jones Act attorney.”

Jones Act Helps Set Level Of Safety, Jones Act Lawyer Shows

A federal Labor Department seaman’s safety representative described the risks of a seaman’s daily life, pointing to statistics showing “seamen have among the most dangerous jobs in America.” To help make the maritime workplace safer, the Jones Act remains one of the most important safety acts in the industry. The labor representative noted there are also other safety standards, often negotiated by employers with employee associations or unions, and sometimes with a Jones Act lawyer, to have even higher safety standards. The labor department spokesman commented that “talking with a Jones Act lawyer is a sort of additional insurance to have those rights protected.”

In a recent case, a Jones Act lawyer tried to introduce agreements about workplace safety. The trial court (incorrectly) refused to let the Jones Act lawyer use the evidence. On appeal, the Jones Act lawyer argued successfully that the trial court should have allowed these two contracts into evidence. The Jones Act lawyer pointed out that they had been signed by vessel owners, and made promises to observe certain safety standards. In this case, noted the Jones Act lawyer, there were actually two separate contracts. One was between vessel owners and the general contractor for the project…which included safety rules for the workers, said the Jones Act lawyer. The other agreement was between vessel owners and the injured seaman’s union (a collective bargaining agreement). That second agreement, proved the Jones Act lawyer, had even more safety requirements. For example, showed the Jones Act lawyer, for vessel owners to comply with safety rules of the State’s Construction Safety Orders about “Runways for Foot Traffic.” These rules were especially important, since the accident in the case was shown by the Jones Act lawyer to have happened on a gangplank:

“a. Except as provided elsewhere, ramps or runways erected for the use of workmen shall be not less than 20 inches in width, and shall be supported so as to avoid deflection or springing action.”

Jones Act Lawyer Explained How Contracts Added Extra Protections For Seamen

The Jones Act lawyer said the parties had a contractual right to specify a higher “standard of care” to be used than that established by the Jones Act. This right to more safety, the Jones Act lawyer was to show, gave certain rights to the injured seaman as a “beneficiary” of the contract. In other words, the seaman was entitled to the protection of the standards in the Jones Act, and also under the contract, the Jones Act lawyer said.

The vessel owners argued that the federal Jones Act was “supreme” over all other safety rules, so that “state safety orders” couldn’t apply. The employer tried to argue (unsuccessfully) that allowing these kinds of private agreements would put a state’s laws too much into the federal Act. That argument, the Jones Act lawyer insisted, “misses the point.” The Jones Act lawyer took the employer’s argument apart, by pointing out that the Jones Act seems to “welcome” higher standards for safety. Vessel owners voluntarily contracted to follow certain additional safety rules. The Jones Act lawyer also suggested the source of the wording in the agreement “was irrelevant.” Besides, these higher safety standards wouldn’t even be from any action of the State, observed the Jones Act lawyer. The higher safety rules came strictly from agreements of the parties, the Jones Act lawyer had proven.

“Better Safety” Is A Good Thing, Argued Jones Act Lawyer

The Jones Act lawyer knew there were no earlier court decisions on this question, so it was an important case. But since the effect of the agreements was to raise or make more definite the standard of care required, public policy, the Jones Act lawyer stressed, would favor the agreements and the admitting them as evidence.

The Jones Act lawyer did point out one similar case, where an injured employee had sued under the Federal Employers Liability Act— an act similar to the Jones Act, mentioned the Jones Act lawyer. The court in that case did consider an agreement between the employee’s union and the employer, where a standard of care had safety rules over and above the federal law. In that case, the court admitted evidence of those safety standards. The appeals court agreed with the Jones Act lawyer, and said the contracts and the negotiated safety standards were relevant to the vessel owner’s liability. As the Jones Act lawyer had asked, these important safety agreements and contracts were then ordered to be received into evidence.

In any case involving an injury, a seaman should get help right away. As this case showed, there’s always a chance that there are also safety rules in addition to the Jones Act. Consulting with a Jones Act lawyer will uncover a seaman’s full rights to all safety standards.

Choose a Jones Act Lawyer with a Successful Record

If you are looking for a Jones Act lawyer, keep a few things in mind. First, make sure you choose an attorney that is experienced. You want a lawyer that has been practicing for several years and has experience with courtroom trials, in case your claim goes to trial. Second, choose an attorney that specializes in the maritime industry. You want a lawyer that has a complete understanding of the Jones Act. Finally, choose a Jones Act lawyer that has a proven success record. Experience does not always equal success. Choose an attorney that has plenty of wins under his or her belt.

Jones Act Lawyer Gets “The Win” for Knee Injury

R. Lee was a deckhand aboard a ferry when he needed an experienced Jones Act lawyer on his side. Mr. Lee performed a variety of tasks while working aboard the ferry. One of the tasks he was assigned to do was to repair the vessel’s roller chocks. At the time of the attempted repair, the vessel was at sea. Mr. Lee was not given any necessary safety equipment to perform the repairs – he was simply told to fix the rollers. The rollers were heavy – almost 140 pounds – and when Mr. Lee tried to lift one he injured his knee. The injury was so severe that he had to undergo three surgeries to repair the damage. Mr. Lee contacted an experienced Jones Act lawyer and a claim was filed.

Mr. Lee’s Jones Act lawyer had no trouble demonstrating the negligence of the employer, as well as the unsafe working environment. Mr. Lee should not have been forced to make the roller repairs while the vessel was at sea. Instead, the repairs should have taken place when the vessel was docked so that Mr. Lee could have had proper equipment, including scaffolding. He was also not provided with any assistance in lifting the heavy rollers. Mr. Lee’s Jones Act lawyer was able to acquire a settlement of over $400,000 for the injured seaman.

Your Jones Act Lawyer Looks out for Your Best Interests

If you have been hurt due to unsafe working conditions aboard a vessel, contact a Jones Act lawyer for advice. Depending on the exact situation, you could be entitled to compensation. Your attorney will file the claim and help get you the best settlement or award for your injuries. Your Jones Act lawyer will always look out for your best interests, not the interests of your employer.

You Never Know When You Will Need a Jones Act Lawyer

As a seaman, you never know when you will need a Jones Act lawyer. When you are hurt on the job, there are many instances where you could be entitled to financial compensation. When an employer is negligent, they have a responsibility to compensate you for injuries incurred due to that negligence. Having an attorney is your best route to getting the money you deserve. If you are ever involved in a maritime accident that leaves you hurt and unable to work, discuss your case with an experienced attorney. Your Jones Act lawyer can help you seek the money you need and deserve.

Jones Act Lawyer Helps Louisiana Deckhand

K. Darren was employed as a deckhand on a tugboat out of Louisiana. Mr. Darren had been working on tugboats for many years – he was an experienced seaman. Yet, he still needed a Jones Act lawyer when he was hurt on the job. Mr. Darren was injured when a crane operator dropped a crane boom on his hand. The impact from the boom severed his thumb from his hand. Mr. Darren contact a Jones Act lawyer for advice and a claim was filed. The claim cited unsafe working conditions and negligence on behalf of the employer.

Mr. Darren’s Jones Act lawyer was easily able to demonstrate the unsafe working conditions and negligence. The employer was negligent because the crane operator had failed to properly operate the crane. The working environment was unsafe because Mr. Darren should not have been expected to work in such close proximity to the moving crane. All of these factors led to the employer being responsible for the accident. Mr. Darren’s Jones Act lawyer was able to negotiate a fair settlement. The final settlement amount was for $2.2 million – compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, and the permanent disability.

A Jones Act Lawyer will Fight for Your Rights

If you, or someone you know, are injured on the job, you need a Jones Act lawyer. Choose the attorney that is not afraid to fight for your rights – the one that has experience with maritime law. You deserve compensation when you are hurt because of your employer’s negligence. Your Jones Act lawyer can help you get the settlement or award that you deserve.

Choose an Experienced Jones Act Attorney

When you are in need of a Jones Act attorney, the number of attorneys available may overwhelm you. It is true that there is no shortage of maritime lawyers. However, just because someone has a law degree does not mean he or she will be successful with your case. When you are choosing a Jones Act attorney, it is important to research the reputation of potential lawyers. You want a lawyer that has a solid track record for winning cases. You want an attorney that has courtroom experience. You want an attorney that is willing to fight for your right to compensation.

Jones Act Attorney Garners Settlement for Frostbite

H. Michael was working aboard a processing vessel when she had a need for a Jones Act attorney. Ms. Michael was working in the freezer hold of the vessel. She began experiencing pain in her feet. Although she repeatedly complained about the pain, she was not given medical attention or moved to a different location. As the pain increased, she was finally given medical attention, only to discover that she had frostbite. The medic aboard the vessel did not send her to shore – instead, she was told to rest. After ten days, she finally got treatment for the frostbite. However, since it had been so long, the frostbite led to gangrene and Ms. Michael had several toes amputated. She hired a Jones Act attorney to help her.

Ms. Michael’s Jones Act attorney filed a claim of negligence. It was clear that Ms. Michael had not received proper medical care. She should have been immediately taken to shore as soon as the frostbite was discovered. Had she received care soon enough, she would not have lost her toes. Ms. Michael’s Jones Act attorney was able to negotiate a settlement rather quickly with her employer. The final settlement amount was for over $1 million.

Exercise Your Rights and Hire a Jones Act Attorney

If you, or someone you know, have been denied proper medical care while working aboard a vessel, call a Jones Act attorney for advice. You could be entitled to compensation if your employer was negligent. Do not be afraid to exercise your right to a lawyer. Let your Jones Act attorney determine if you have a case and help you get fair compensation.

Have a Successful Claim with a Qualified Jones Act Lawyer

Finding a good Jones Act lawyer is paramount to the success of your financial claim. You already know that there are thousands of lawyers waiting for your business. However, only a qualified attorney that specializes in the Jones Act should represent you in court. Take your time in choosing an attorney – but do not take so long that you miss your window of opportunity to file a claim. The best thing you can do for your own peace of mind is to choose a Jones Act lawyer today. Do not wait for an injury to happen or you might find yourself stuck with an inexperienced attorney.

Jones Act Lawyer Helps Injured Processor Seek Compensation

D. Locke was employed as a processor when she had to find a good Jones Act lawyer. Ms. Locke was involved in an injury that left her with a permanent disability. Ms. Locke was assigned the task of cleaning a large piece of machinery. Ms. Locke was told to leave the machinery running while she sprayed it with a hose – this was supposed to save time. Ms. Locke’s jacket sleeve was caught in the machinery. With no emergency shut-off switch, she could do nothing but scream. By the time another worker turned the machinery off, Ms. Locke’s arm had been pulled into the machinery. She lost part of her hand and her forearm. With the help of a Jones Act lawyer, she filed a claim.

The Jones Act lawyer for Ms. Locke filed the claim on the grounds that the environment was not safe and that the employer had been negligent. The negligence was clear – the machinery should have been shut down before cleaning. By telling Ms. Locke to leave the machinery running, the supervisor had made the environment unsafe. Ms. Locke’s Jones Act lawyer and her employer negotiated a settlement. The final amount was for $2.4 million.

Let Your Jones Act Lawyer Help You

If you, or someone you know, have lost a limb due to a maritime accident, contact a Jones Act lawyer for advice. When an employer is negligent, you need a good attorney to help you seek financial justice. Ms. Locke made the right choice when she hired an experienced attorney. Her attorney was able to get her a fair settlement for her injuries. Your Jones Act lawyer can do the same for you.